Queens College Student Services Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
116080523
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Flushing, NY, USA
Phone
7189973970
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,551,267
Expenses
$3,859,488
Assets
$2,203,294
Liabilities
$504,309

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK WU (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER JARVIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANK WU (PRESIDENT): $598,715 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA PRICE (DIRECTOR): $330,513 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER JARVIS (VICE PRESIDENT): $255,762 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Queens college student services corporation of the city university of New York was created for the purpose of developing and cultivating educational, social, cultural, and recreational activities among students of queens college.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule ostudent services corporation's primary exempt mission is to support the students of queens college. The organization is dedicated to meeting the educational, social, and recreational needs of queens college's students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community. To complement the college's educational mission, the organization provides various facilities, services, co-curricular activities, and programs, such as athletic/recreation buildings, research centers, computing centers, etc. Student services offers opportunities for active learning experiences in citizenship, leadership, and individual and group responsibilities. In this environment, people of varying backgrounds develop an appreciation for the richness of the community's diversity. Student services offers students the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have learned in the classroom.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -51.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $599K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.